John McCain (and others) are taking the position that the case of Senator Craig is different from the case of Senator Vitter not for ethical reasons, but by reason of legal status.

Senator Craig pled guilty in court, in a sworn statement, while Senator Vitter merely admitted guilt at a press conference, in an unsworn statement.

Moral equivalence? Forget about it! There's a legal distinction, and that distinction is what McCain (and others) are grasping.

McCain's assertion is that legal status is what matters -- not ethics or morality.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/craig.arrest/

Wed August 29, 2007
Craig stripped of party leadership on Senate committees

[...] On Wednesday, three Republican lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, called on Craig to resign. [...] "I think he should resign. My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime you shouldn't serve."

- - CNN

Bush's DUI is surely as bad as Craig's citation, no?

So, if it's a matter of law...

D'oh!

There's a simpler explanation that requires fewer assumptions. It sounds a lot classier to claim to be "Values-oriented" than it is to just say "I hate faggots".

Great job, Glenn! This is the reason that Newt "The Fornicator" Gingrich still has traction. What a bunch of "pathetic losers"...!

I fail to see any significant distinction, of relevance to Christians, between the facts in the Vitter case and those in the Craig case. Both seem to have violated the morals of their own community and biblically there is no support for some sins being worse than others so homosexual adultery isn't any worse than heterosexual adultery.

I would point out that Craig hasn't acknowledged any wrong doing even though everyone assumes, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that he is "guilty". Meanwhile Vitter has acknowledged falling short of his own moral standards and I assume asked for forgiveness from his family, the people he represents and God.

I don't feel that either needs to resign because of their actions. By their own standards, Craig is a Methodist and Vitter is a Catholic, both have sinned but also by their own beliefs all have sinned so that just isn't a good reason to resign from a secular institution like the US Senate.

Notice that the real Christian republican candidates, Huckabee and Brownback, are holding off calling for his resignation. If they do call for his resignation it will be because they are convinced he isn't telling the truth. Forgiveness of sins is at the heart of the Christian faith so Craig's failure to acknowledge his failings and to ask for forgiveness should be a much bigger problem for Christians than the sins themselves.

However, I doubt the people calling so loudly for his resignation are doing so because they want Craig to come clean. I'm quite confident that in the end your analysis of cost-free moralism is correct for those calling the loudest for his resignation even if there is an alternate explanation.

What this is also exposing if a profound (and weird) conflict the the "values" people. They are absolutely, positively completely against two people of the same sex who are in love, want to make a lifelong monogamous commitment, and raise a family. They have absolutely no problem with a man who has routinely violated his religious vow to maintain a lifelong, monogamous commitment, to the extent that he has apparently alienated his children.

They could fix this by condemning the closeted lifestyle (by the way, if you haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, you should. It's the most searing depiction of what the closet does to people that I've ever seen), and embracing same sex marriage, and condemning, as well, the licentiousness of powerful people.

This whole business reminds me of a remark by PJ O'Rourke. He said (paraphrasing):" People want to get married, have children and go to church? And conservatives are trying to stop them? Hell, if we let them do that, they'll be republicans in no time."

It just points out the irrationality that underlies the whole "values" enterprise. Of course, this leaves aside the hypocritical exploitation of their followers by the Perkins and the Dobsons of this world. It's impossible to believe that they were unaware of the sexual preferences and practices of leading Republicans, from the apparently brazen adultery of Newt Gingrich while leading the charge to impeach Clinton to the rumored sexual preferences of a couple of republican senators up for reelection this term.

They inculcate people with an irrational fear of homosexuality, exploit it for money and power and then pay no attention to it when it interferes with that exploitation.

Is that why there is such a tie between the AIPAC crowd and the fundies--because they both take their morality from the Old Testament instead of the New?

I've called out this book before, but Alan Dershowitz's "The Genesis of Justice" goes through the development of the concept of justice in the Old Testament from the vengeful, to retributive, to the proscriptive justice of the Ten Commandments. To me, this is then improved upon with the two commandments from Jesus, while the Paulician additions are a throwback to the more primitive ideas.

Does anyone know for sure that Rush's little "Sex Junkets" down to the Dominican Republic don't involve young boys? How about that?

Glenn writes:

Here is the adulation heaped on Tony Perkins of the odious Family Research Council by Chris Matthews on Tuesday night:

Tony Perkins, you're a great man. We have had you on so many times. . . . . Tony Perkins, let me ask you to respond to that. Do you think that they're -- that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?

Tony ("Psycho") Perkins has videotape of Tweety fucking a pumpkin, which is not only perverse but the height of narcissism.

But Tweety is right about one thing: Perkins doesn't care about election results -- not when the Almighty Supremes can overturn the inconvenient ones with impunity.